Re: Build Boost Back Better

From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-04-04 20:28:06

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 21:11, William Linkmeyer via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I’m more than happy to rewrite parts of the Boost website with, perhaps,
> bootstrap and mustaches.
>
> It would be fitting, I think, to use boost-based projects for the
> website’s back-end  I’m currently working on a boost::beast-based server.
> It hosts my website, but that’s not exactly mass-tested.
>
> I am curious in re. the thought that Boost is on a decline. If the point
> of comparison is high-impact library creation and adoption, then yes, maybe
> boost is on a decline. But, aren’t there only so many fundamental libraries
> to create — and doesn’t boost cover virtually all of those fundamental
> libraries?
>
> There might be room to pivot in the direction of more user-facing
> utilities. Things like graphics clients, window managers, or audio I/O come
> to mind.

I favour this. Boost is great for supplying nuts and bolts, but it's light
on turnkey application frameworks.

>
>
> There may also be room to pivot in the opposite direction: embedded
> utilities. Things such as GPIO, SPI, and I2C come to mind as easy
> candidates for such a library. The state of that landscape is a bit
> scattered right now. On one hand, the Linux kernel gives the programmer
> robust support for such connections — but because all of the support is
> file-based, programmers generally pick a library with less overhead. That
> library used to be wiringpi, which has since gone dark.
>
> Developers may find such projects attractive. If my experience is any
> indication of how other programmers think, I’ll put it out there: the
> existing boost libraries are either too well-written (beast), too large, or
> too domain-specific (math libraries) for me to contribute anything of
> substance.
>
> WL
>
> > On Apr 4, 2022, at 1:43 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, now that I have everyone's attention just before the release,
> > I'd like to draw attention to the elephant in the room. That is, the
> > declining level of activity on the Boost mailing lists and the
> > declining level of participation in the Boost formal review process.
> > Both in terms of the number of reviewers, and in terms of the
> > difficulty in finding a review manager.
> >
> > Clearly, a website update is necessary and along with it some type of
> > campaign to highlight once again the important role that Boost serves
> > in the C++ community for both professionals and amateurs alike. But
> > what more can we do?
> >
> > This came up before but it is worth mentioning again; in addition to a
> > website update to make boost.org modern and relevant, how do we feel
> > about a transition to forum-based discussion instead of the mailing
> > list? I realize this will ruffle some feathers but surely the
> > alternative, a descent into irrelevance due to steady declining
> > activity is worse?
> >
> > Discuss.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Vinnie
> >
> > Follow me on GitHub: https://github.com/vinniefalco
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>